andselisk

@ChetMiller With all due respect, please note this is a Q&A site, not a forum. If you want to train the OP in a back-and-forth communication via asking questions and posing problems to solve, chat is the right place for that.

@ananta Since you still believe that I harassed you, I will take this into account and maybe stop investing my time in posting any corrections to eliminate possible similar accusations in the future. From now on, if there is anything wrong with the post, I'll label it with a subtle mark called the downvote as a hint. End of story, the hatchet is out of sight and out of mind.

@ananta You would if you actually read the suggested sections from the SI Brochure mentioned in my earlier comment also about the unit kelvin, but you decided to focus on finding the reasons for being called harassed by a mod, so sorry, but no, I'm not reviewing this post any further.

As for the question, not every reaction is thermodynamically driven, and also either the title, or the article it is based on is quite misleading. As for you edit that "incorporated suggestions in comments" — barely any of the suggestions were addressed.

'k' is the symbol for kilo-. You write decimal prefix without any unit symbol, which doesn't make sense. Using math environment for references is not quite semantically correct as they are not powers. There is no space between the degree symbol and 'F' (or 'C'). In place of \overset for arrows in \ce{…} macro use ->[<text above>][<text below>]. There are footnote reference markers *† that do not lead anywhere. \ce{…} in the table headers are out of place and reason. Also, I suggest checking MathJax and punctuation for consistency.

By the way, speaking of unethical — flagging a comment as abusive a day after it was posted because you encountered an disagreement with the author after the fact is pretty low. The comment hasn't been altered, but your attitude was — this is not what flags are for.

The second lie is "+ve or -ve simple means positive or negative and this is understood by those who do science". Where is it written? Bring up the standards, and then you can find fault with my style and Latin as much as you want. I do science for quite a while and I needed to look them up first time I encountered these notations in one of the questions.

@AChem "nobody can read them" is the first lie since everyone can click URL and get to the chat. Despite being asked numerous times, neither you nor mbrig cared to add any references to style guides or standards and you keep on pushing your personal preferences justifying incorrect typesetting as if you are getting paid for it or are personally insulted. This is opinion-based and does not belong to the comment section.

@mbrig Indian/Canadian teachers can teach whatever they want, but since their students come here to ask questions, don't you think these teachers might not be doing stellar job at teaching and the made up nonsensical notations are part of the problem? I'm still waiting for the standard to see the point I'm supposedly missing. In the meantime let's move this to chat.

@mbrig You are missing the point or deliberately initiating ignoratio elenchi, not sure what is worth. I'm not against local standards if they make sense, don't contradict with existing international standards and are standards in the first place. So please show me any standard or recommendation encouraging use of +ve/−ve notation. As for US system of measurement you've been a user long enough to know that you may use whatever unit you like – but please do it right.

@AChem I'm afraid you do, and I made several proofs of that. How you deal with it is none of my business, but I do and will correct every unnecessarily dumb notation so that we can understand each other because I care about doing things properly. Let me assure you I am not the only person who is not happy about lousy written communication. And what's the point of speculating about the future? There are well established, simple and freely available norms on how to communicate — how hard can it be to just follow them and stop defending degeneracy?

@AChem No respectable style guide allows to use {+|−}ve nonsense, even the ones used in medicine, where the abbreviation seems to originate (pos./neg. are used instead). Ritter's Oxford style manual guide explicitly bans these in text, and so do numerous author guidelines. Unless you find a solid argument or reputable standard to justify use of this notation which is incorrect on many levels, there is no objective reason to tolerate this made-up invented abomination (which, by the way, you incorrectly typeset using en dash in place of minus — so it reads "endashative").

@AChem You seem to be encouraging illiteracy once again. SE sites are for international community, not Indian one. We care about other's time and use international standards. Google tops whatever gets them more ad revenue and clicks, not what is correct. Long gone days when Google ranking was worth something. Wiktionary is not an arbiter of what is good English.

I'd think twice before using notes where a simple and correct $$Q<0$$ is replaced with invented abomination like $$Q=\ominus\mathrm{ve}$$

@BuckThorn I don't know, I guess I was taught in line of the definition found, say, here: "A dihedral angle is defined as the angle between two planes, both of which pass through the same bond". Maybe I'm just making a fool out of myself)

@Ritil I used MarvinSketch to draw the structures and added colored planes in Inkscape.

@BuckThorn No prob, I moved the messages and deleted the new chat.

← 9 messages moved from Discussion on question by Ritil: When does the angle between the planes in tetrahedral molecule with central atom deviate from 90°?

@BuckThorn Isn't dihedral angle implies shared bond? (BTW this should be written in chat, not comments…)

@Ritil I took a liberty to replace your photos of the paper model with CG schemes and overhauled the writing quite a bit for arguably better logic and "storytelling" so that it could be reopened. Feel free to check whether the intended meaning has been preserved.

← 5 messages moved from Discussion between Poutnik and OAS

@uhoh Thank you for notifying me, interesting discovery. Although I'm a bit skeptical that in 1954 the structure of adenovirus or viruses in general has been that well characterized. I'm still inclined to think that was some inorganic cluster similar to dodecaborate, but it could be anything, even an homage to pythagoreans as a reminder of irrationality in the world. Hard to tell for sure.

@uhoh Judging from Pauling's age, the photo is likely from 1950s. I'm even going to assume it was one of the photos taken on occasion of his 1954 NP award. There were no fullerenes known at the time, but some boron hydride clusters were structurally characterized, and maybe Pauling was tinkering as to how carbon atoms would be spatially arranged, then left the models lying around when a reporter came to him asking for a "scientifically-looking" photo. Ivan's comment rightfully and effectively tests the audience for fanboyism (Pauling was a controversial person, no need to defend him).

@Poutnik If you are after char economy, then plimsoll is the symbol for you. Just one Unicode symbol ⦵ in place of five-letter escape sequence \circ. Easy to input too, if you are familiar with a compose key.

@Poutnik No, never use \ominus for "standard". It's plimsoll ⦵, which is a totally different symbol.

$E^0 = 1,$ standard state should never be denoted with zero. Or, even worse, with letter oh. Use either $E^\circ$ or $E^⦵.$

@Poutnik No, it's not a striked-through circle either -_-. Guys, please stop inventing your own notations and see note 12 on page 71 of IUPAC Green Book.

You shifted from an easy-to-digest but less accurate to a more complex yet more strict definition. It's OK to grow up and change perception of things, just try not to destroy the universe while you are at it (eigenchris — What Is Momentum? (joke video) (YouTube)).

@SafdarFaisal Converting \mathrm macro used properly for typesetting units to \pu macro is pointless, and it's a matter of personal choice. You gained no improvement in readability here.

@BuckThorn Compose key FTW.

To me Martin's post was clear enough and honestly I like it as it tells some kind of a story; a struggle to choose the correct macro:)

I don't like certain things in modern life I'm forced to believe I should be used to. At least here I have some control over it:)

I think chemmacros and chemformula rock. Plus, Clemens (author of the packages) is highly active on TeX.SE and helps with the issues quite fast.

@orthocresol I know I have a reputation of pedantic Å-hole, but I honestly don't care about random people's feelings and opinions these days.

@orthocresol Only if you point a loaded gun to my head:) We have mhchem for element symbols, ang "ugly" for the rest. No need for "ugly" everywhere; yay semantics:)

@orthocresol I like awful:) Seriously, I'm probably a bit too cautious due to the amount of stuff that got broken when I switched from mhchem to chemformula package in my LaTeX workflow. \mathrm is simple and robust. It likely won't change a bit for another century, whereas macros for chemistry typesetting seem more fragile, complex and are often a subject to change. I'd use them strictly for the documented features only.

@BuckThorn This confuses editors:) If you have an idea how and where to use, say, hyphen, minus, en-dash and em-dash, you will be disappointed in humanity each time you see "-" used for all four purposes in the same post.

@BuckThorn I remember there was a period a senior user (nickname starts with 'M', ends with 'W') was complaining that \mathrm is too long to type and does look bad on his screen. Took me a while to convince him. Now he just encloses an entire equation in \mathrm{…}…

@BuckThorn Sigh… I guess we need Martin to explain this again. In the meantime, you can check the documentation for the "big-boy" mhchem (PDF). You won't find anything regarding orbital symbols or hybridization. Also, using common sense it's clear that semantics is broken if you use wrong macro for the job.

@BuckThorn Martin says "The use of \ce{...} as a workaround is wrong. In this case you are using a command, that is not designed for this usage." And this is exactly correct.

@BuckThorn Please don't use \ce{…} for orbitals. See On formatting electron configurations. And yes, I ortho is correct, I was referring to the Todd's editing spree.

Tags are still a bit of a hit-or-miss to me. I don't like five tags limit and some tags' usage. I used to stick with a different tagging system I developed for myself using Zotero where I would stick with "microtags" and less verbosity in tag names.

@SafdarFaisal No prob.

Keep in mind though that it adds code complexity and hurts code readability, so make sure to use them when it really makes sense.

@SafdarFaisal Yeah, I'd probably would go with \left(-\right) pair. Outer text braces look disproportionally tiny compared to the content which looks taller due to square brackets and a charge.

@SafdarFaisal An example, please. Usually you should be able to tell when left-right macros are needed by listening to your sense of beauty. If the braces change the size, you are likely supposed to use these.

@FadedGiant You should probably consult mother Meta, not me. Alternatively, try and see what happens; I'm also curious at this point.

@SafdarFaisal The question is in the reopening queue and I don't any reasons to mod-reopen it. Granted, you did stellar job with your edit trying to resurrect it, but the premise is still not quite good IMO, so I'd like to let the community decide.

As for claimed sockpuppeting, technically users are allowed to have more than one account as long as they are not abusing their other account(s) by cross-voting, spam, bot activity and so on (see Jeff's answer on main Meta). I guess we will have to keep an eye on Safdar's sock activity from now on. I still have no idea what was/is the point of creating a sock, but as long it doesn't violate terms of service, there is not much mods can or should do.

@NikeDattani Mods have access to some level of PII, and the primary reason we are allowed to do so is exactly what I used it for: identifying sockpuppets. We are not allowed to discuss the tools used for identification, and, of course, reveal PII anywhere. Relevant Meta post: Exactly which users PII do moderators have access to?.